[underdose]

Okay, John. To be fair, I watched her speech. At least, I caught the last 30 minutes of it. I’m still not impressed. There were some cheap shot insults. The failure of the Bush administration was not addressed. McCain’s record of 90% voting with Bush was not addressed and the empty claim that he went his own way was made. Her affilliation to fossil fuels was reiterated. McCain is a war hero, but what’s that got to do with her? So, she used her veto power to rein in spending in Alaska. Is that it? How, again, is she qualified to fall into the presidency in the not unlikely event that McCain’s health doesn’t hold out?!

To me, the most striking thing about republicans these days is that they make false claims that only fly by the least sophisticated people. But we here at piggington are more sophisticated, aren’t we? We grasp here that deficit spending coupled with debasing the currency is a form of tax. Let’s say I’m Bush. I borrow and spend while claiming I’m lowering taxes. I appoint Helicopter Ben to the Fed. You, the tax payer, suffer a loss in purchase power. In a sneaky way, I took your purchase power away and spent it in Iraq. But I didn’t tax you, at least not directly. But I did through the borrow/inflation shell game.

Her criticism that Obama wants to tax and spend falls flat when you look at what Bush has done. Bush has been the biggest taxer and spender in American history, and we who are not duped by his shell game recognize that is part of why the economy is in so much trouble. Again, 90% of the time McCain said “go right on ahead, Mr. Bush”. Neither candidate stands for smaller government. At least Obama wants to spend it at home instead of Iraq for the next 100 years.

Bottom line, she is still a puzzlingly poor choice for VP.

[underdose]

Okay, John. To be fair, I watched her speech. At least, I caught the last 30 minutes of it. I’m still not impressed. There were some cheap shot insults. The failure of the Bush administration was not addressed. McCain’s record of 90% voting with Bush was not addressed and the empty claim that he went his own way was made. Her affilliation to fossil fuels was reiterated. McCain is a war hero, but what’s that got to do with her? So, she used her veto power to rein in spending in Alaska. Is that it? How, again, is she qualified to fall into the presidency in the not unlikely event that McCain’s health doesn’t hold out?!

To me, the most striking thing about republicans these days is that they make false claims that only fly by the least sophisticated people. But we here at piggington are more sophisticated, aren’t we? We grasp here that deficit spending coupled with debasing the currency is a form of tax. Let’s say I’m Bush. I borrow and spend while claiming I’m lowering taxes. I appoint Helicopter Ben to the Fed. You, the tax payer, suffer a loss in purchase power. In a sneaky way, I took your purchase power away and spent it in Iraq. But I didn’t tax you, at least not directly. But I did through the borrow/inflation shell game.

Her criticism that Obama wants to tax and spend falls flat when you look at what Bush has done. Bush has been the biggest taxer and spender in American history, and we who are not duped by his shell game recognize that is part of why the economy is in so much trouble. Again, 90% of the time McCain said “go right on ahead, Mr. Bush”. Neither candidate stands for smaller government. At least Obama wants to spend it at home instead of Iraq for the next 100 years.

Bottom line, she is still a puzzlingly poor choice for VP.

[underdose]

Okay, John. To be fair, I watched her speech. At least, I caught the last 30 minutes of it. I’m still not impressed. There were some cheap shot insults. The failure of the Bush administration was not addressed. McCain’s record of 90% voting with Bush was not addressed and the empty claim that he went his own way was made. Her affilliation to fossil fuels was reiterated. McCain is a war hero, but what’s that got to do with her? So, she used her veto power to rein in spending in Alaska. Is that it? How, again, is she qualified to fall into the presidency in the not unlikely event that McCain’s health doesn’t hold out?!

To me, the most striking thing about republicans these days is that they make false claims that only fly by the least sophisticated people. But we here at piggington are more sophisticated, aren’t we? We grasp here that deficit spending coupled with debasing the currency is a form of tax. Let’s say I’m Bush. I borrow and spend while claiming I’m lowering taxes. I appoint Helicopter Ben to the Fed. You, the tax payer, suffer a loss in purchase power. In a sneaky way, I took your purchase power away and spent it in Iraq. But I didn’t tax you, at least not directly. But I did through the borrow/inflation shell game.

Her criticism that Obama wants to tax and spend falls flat when you look at what Bush has done. Bush has been the biggest taxer and spender in American history, and we who are not duped by his shell game recognize that is part of why the economy is in so much trouble. Again, 90% of the time McCain said “go right on ahead, Mr. Bush”. Neither candidate stands for smaller government. At least Obama wants to spend it at home instead of Iraq for the next 100 years.

Bottom line, she is still a puzzlingly poor choice for VP.

[underdose]

Okay, John. To be fair, I watched her speech. At least, I caught the last 30 minutes of it. I’m still not impressed. There were some cheap shot insults. The failure of the Bush administration was not addressed. McCain’s record of 90% voting with Bush was not addressed and the empty claim that he went his own way was made. Her affilliation to fossil fuels was reiterated. McCain is a war hero, but what’s that got to do with her? So, she used her veto power to rein in spending in Alaska. Is that it? How, again, is she qualified to fall into the presidency in the not unlikely event that McCain’s health doesn’t hold out?!

To me, the most striking thing about republicans these days is that they make false claims that only fly by the least sophisticated people. But we here at piggington are more sophisticated, aren’t we? We grasp here that deficit spending coupled with debasing the currency is a form of tax. Let’s say I’m Bush. I borrow and spend while claiming I’m lowering taxes. I appoint Helicopter Ben to the Fed. You, the tax payer, suffer a loss in purchase power. In a sneaky way, I took your purchase power away and spent it in Iraq. But I didn’t tax you, at least not directly. But I did through the borrow/inflation shell game.

Her criticism that Obama wants to tax and spend falls flat when you look at what Bush has done. Bush has been the biggest taxer and spender in American history, and we who are not duped by his shell game recognize that is part of why the economy is in so much trouble. Again, 90% of the time McCain said “go right on ahead, Mr. Bush”. Neither candidate stands for smaller government. At least Obama wants to spend it at home instead of Iraq for the next 100 years.

Bottom line, she is still a puzzlingly poor choice for VP.

[underdose]

Okay, John. To be fair, I watched her speech. At least, I caught the last 30 minutes of it. I’m still not impressed. There were some cheap shot insults. The failure of the Bush administration was not addressed. McCain’s record of 90% voting with Bush was not addressed and the empty claim that he went his own way was made. Her affilliation to fossil fuels was reiterated. McCain is a war hero, but what’s that got to do with her? So, she used her veto power to rein in spending in Alaska. Is that it? How, again, is she qualified to fall into the presidency in the not unlikely event that McCain’s health doesn’t hold out?!

To me, the most striking thing about republicans these days is that they make false claims that only fly by the least sophisticated people. But we here at piggington are more sophisticated, aren’t we? We grasp here that deficit spending coupled with debasing the currency is a form of tax. Let’s say I’m Bush. I borrow and spend while claiming I’m lowering taxes. I appoint Helicopter Ben to the Fed. You, the tax payer, suffer a loss in purchase power. In a sneaky way, I took your purchase power away and spent it in Iraq. But I didn’t tax you, at least not directly. But I did through the borrow/inflation shell game.

Her criticism that Obama wants to tax and spend falls flat when you look at what Bush has done. Bush has been the biggest taxer and spender in American history, and we who are not duped by his shell game recognize that is part of why the economy is in so much trouble. Again, 90% of the time McCain said “go right on ahead, Mr. Bush”. Neither candidate stands for smaller government. At least Obama wants to spend it at home instead of Iraq for the next 100 years.

Bottom line, she is still a puzzlingly poor choice for VP.

[underdose]

[quote=jficquette]
I don’t think you know enough about her to make the claims you do. Today will be the first time she speaks. Watch her and see what you think about her.

I bet she wouldn’t lie like Hillary did about being shot at by snipers. I also bet she can prove her citizenship unlike Obama. I also bet she wouldn’t run around with racist slobs like that pastor guy or run around with criminals and bombers.

…

John[/quote]

John, I’m sorry but I have to reiterate my point. You clearly didn’t get it the first time. My dislike for Palin does not make me a democrat. I never said I liked Hillary any better. You are just jumping to false assumptions. Attacking Hillary does not gain any ground in refuting my criticisms of Palin.

As for your criticisms of Obama, I agree that his affiliations with Rev. Wright don’t demonstrate the best judgment. I conceded that neither candidate is perfect. But yes, Palin probably would run around with racists, as many evangelicals are. McCain’s affiliations with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other religious hate spewers are no less embarrassing. So that one doesn’t help your case either. At best it is a push, at worst the right is more extreme so it’s a mark against you.

Tonight won’t be the first time she speaks. You’re claim that I don’t know enough about her is an error. See my list of bullet points above. We do know quite a lot about her, and the words of her speech tonight will not trump her actions of the past.

[underdose]

[quote=jficquette]
I don’t think you know enough about her to make the claims you do. Today will be the first time she speaks. Watch her and see what you think about her.

I bet she wouldn’t lie like Hillary did about being shot at by snipers. I also bet she can prove her citizenship unlike Obama. I also bet she wouldn’t run around with racist slobs like that pastor guy or run around with criminals and bombers.

…

John[/quote]

John, I’m sorry but I have to reiterate my point. You clearly didn’t get it the first time. My dislike for Palin does not make me a democrat. I never said I liked Hillary any better. You are just jumping to false assumptions. Attacking Hillary does not gain any ground in refuting my criticisms of Palin.

As for your criticisms of Obama, I agree that his affiliations with Rev. Wright don’t demonstrate the best judgment. I conceded that neither candidate is perfect. But yes, Palin probably would run around with racists, as many evangelicals are. McCain’s affiliations with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other religious hate spewers are no less embarrassing. So that one doesn’t help your case either. At best it is a push, at worst the right is more extreme so it’s a mark against you.

Tonight won’t be the first time she speaks. You’re claim that I don’t know enough about her is an error. See my list of bullet points above. We do know quite a lot about her, and the words of her speech tonight will not trump her actions of the past.

[underdose]

[quote=jficquette]
I don’t think you know enough about her to make the claims you do. Today will be the first time she speaks. Watch her and see what you think about her.

I bet she wouldn’t lie like Hillary did about being shot at by snipers. I also bet she can prove her citizenship unlike Obama. I also bet she wouldn’t run around with racist slobs like that pastor guy or run around with criminals and bombers.

…

John[/quote]

John, I’m sorry but I have to reiterate my point. You clearly didn’t get it the first time. My dislike for Palin does not make me a democrat. I never said I liked Hillary any better. You are just jumping to false assumptions. Attacking Hillary does not gain any ground in refuting my criticisms of Palin.

As for your criticisms of Obama, I agree that his affiliations with Rev. Wright don’t demonstrate the best judgment. I conceded that neither candidate is perfect. But yes, Palin probably would run around with racists, as many evangelicals are. McCain’s affiliations with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other religious hate spewers are no less embarrassing. So that one doesn’t help your case either. At best it is a push, at worst the right is more extreme so it’s a mark against you.

Tonight won’t be the first time she speaks. You’re claim that I don’t know enough about her is an error. See my list of bullet points above. We do know quite a lot about her, and the words of her speech tonight will not trump her actions of the past.

[underdose]

[quote=jficquette]
I don’t think you know enough about her to make the claims you do. Today will be the first time she speaks. Watch her and see what you think about her.

I bet she wouldn’t lie like Hillary did about being shot at by snipers. I also bet she can prove her citizenship unlike Obama. I also bet she wouldn’t run around with racist slobs like that pastor guy or run around with criminals and bombers.

…

John[/quote]

John, I’m sorry but I have to reiterate my point. You clearly didn’t get it the first time. My dislike for Palin does not make me a democrat. I never said I liked Hillary any better. You are just jumping to false assumptions. Attacking Hillary does not gain any ground in refuting my criticisms of Palin.

As for your criticisms of Obama, I agree that his affiliations with Rev. Wright don’t demonstrate the best judgment. I conceded that neither candidate is perfect. But yes, Palin probably would run around with racists, as many evangelicals are. McCain’s affiliations with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other religious hate spewers are no less embarrassing. So that one doesn’t help your case either. At best it is a push, at worst the right is more extreme so it’s a mark against you.

Tonight won’t be the first time she speaks. You’re claim that I don’t know enough about her is an error. See my list of bullet points above. We do know quite a lot about her, and the words of her speech tonight will not trump her actions of the past.

[underdose]

[quote=jficquette]
I don’t think you know enough about her to make the claims you do. Today will be the first time she speaks. Watch her and see what you think about her.

I bet she wouldn’t lie like Hillary did about being shot at by snipers. I also bet she can prove her citizenship unlike Obama. I also bet she wouldn’t run around with racist slobs like that pastor guy or run around with criminals and bombers.

…

John[/quote]

John, I’m sorry but I have to reiterate my point. You clearly didn’t get it the first time. My dislike for Palin does not make me a democrat. I never said I liked Hillary any better. You are just jumping to false assumptions. Attacking Hillary does not gain any ground in refuting my criticisms of Palin.

As for your criticisms of Obama, I agree that his affiliations with Rev. Wright don’t demonstrate the best judgment. I conceded that neither candidate is perfect. But yes, Palin probably would run around with racists, as many evangelicals are. McCain’s affiliations with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other religious hate spewers are no less embarrassing. So that one doesn’t help your case either. At best it is a push, at worst the right is more extreme so it’s a mark against you.

Tonight won’t be the first time she speaks. You’re claim that I don’t know enough about her is an error. See my list of bullet points above. We do know quite a lot about her, and the words of her speech tonight will not trump her actions of the past.

[underdose]

[quote=jficquette]Underdose,

You would love her if she was a democrat.

John[/quote]

Ah ha! The ol’ “if it’s not red, it’s blue.” Everyone jumps to the conclussion that if someone doesn’t like a republican, they must automatically be a far left liberal democrat. Wrong assumption!

I’m an independent voter, leaning closest to libertarian than anything. My favorite candidate in the primaries was a republican, Ron Paul. I don’t like the dems’ tendency towards socialism. I don’t like the reps’ tendency towards theocracy, militarism, oil-dependency, and well, these days socialism. As someone in the “center” I feel disenfranchised by both parties. I sadly have to vote for the lesser of two evils. So no, I wouldn’t like her if she were a democrat. I wouldn’t even like her if she carried the label “libertarian”, because her stance would contradict the label. I don’t like her stance on any issue. She has a very thin track record, and what little is there does not demonstrate good judgment to me. She, and the poor judgment of the man that chose her, is clearly the greater of two evils, regardless of label.

It seems to me the opposite of your claim is true. She and McCain are getting a free-pass simply because of the label “republican”. If you are free-thinking and honest, can’t you at least admit she is a bad republican?

[underdose]

[quote=jficquette]Underdose,

You would love her if she was a democrat.

John[/quote]

Ah ha! The ol’ “if it’s not red, it’s blue.” Everyone jumps to the conclussion that if someone doesn’t like a republican, they must automatically be a far left liberal democrat. Wrong assumption!

I’m an independent voter, leaning closest to libertarian than anything. My favorite candidate in the primaries was a republican, Ron Paul. I don’t like the dems’ tendency towards socialism. I don’t like the reps’ tendency towards theocracy, militarism, oil-dependency, and well, these days socialism. As someone in the “center” I feel disenfranchised by both parties. I sadly have to vote for the lesser of two evils. So no, I wouldn’t like her if she were a democrat. I wouldn’t even like her if she carried the label “libertarian”, because her stance would contradict the label. I don’t like her stance on any issue. She has a very thin track record, and what little is there does not demonstrate good judgment to me. She, and the poor judgment of the man that chose her, is clearly the greater of two evils, regardless of label.

It seems to me the opposite of your claim is true. She and McCain are getting a free-pass simply because of the label “republican”. If you are free-thinking and honest, can’t you at least admit she is a bad republican?

[underdose]

[quote=jficquette]Underdose,

You would love her if she was a democrat.

John[/quote]

Ah ha! The ol’ “if it’s not red, it’s blue.” Everyone jumps to the conclussion that if someone doesn’t like a republican, they must automatically be a far left liberal democrat. Wrong assumption!

I’m an independent voter, leaning closest to libertarian than anything. My favorite candidate in the primaries was a republican, Ron Paul. I don’t like the dems’ tendency towards socialism. I don’t like the reps’ tendency towards theocracy, militarism, oil-dependency, and well, these days socialism. As someone in the “center” I feel disenfranchised by both parties. I sadly have to vote for the lesser of two evils. So no, I wouldn’t like her if she were a democrat. I wouldn’t even like her if she carried the label “libertarian”, because her stance would contradict the label. I don’t like her stance on any issue. She has a very thin track record, and what little is there does not demonstrate good judgment to me. She, and the poor judgment of the man that chose her, is clearly the greater of two evils, regardless of label.

It seems to me the opposite of your claim is true. She and McCain are getting a free-pass simply because of the label “republican”. If you are free-thinking and honest, can’t you at least admit she is a bad republican?

[underdose]

[quote=jficquette]Underdose,

You would love her if she was a democrat.

John[/quote]

Ah ha! The ol’ “if it’s not red, it’s blue.” Everyone jumps to the conclussion that if someone doesn’t like a republican, they must automatically be a far left liberal democrat. Wrong assumption!

I’m an independent voter, leaning closest to libertarian than anything. My favorite candidate in the primaries was a republican, Ron Paul. I don’t like the dems’ tendency towards socialism. I don’t like the reps’ tendency towards theocracy, militarism, oil-dependency, and well, these days socialism. As someone in the “center” I feel disenfranchised by both parties. I sadly have to vote for the lesser of two evils. So no, I wouldn’t like her if she were a democrat. I wouldn’t even like her if she carried the label “libertarian”, because her stance would contradict the label. I don’t like her stance on any issue. She has a very thin track record, and what little is there does not demonstrate good judgment to me. She, and the poor judgment of the man that chose her, is clearly the greater of two evils, regardless of label.

It seems to me the opposite of your claim is true. She and McCain are getting a free-pass simply because of the label “republican”. If you are free-thinking and honest, can’t you at least admit she is a bad republican?

[underdose]

[quote=jficquette]Underdose,

You would love her if she was a democrat.

John[/quote]

Ah ha! The ol’ “if it’s not red, it’s blue.” Everyone jumps to the conclussion that if someone doesn’t like a republican, they must automatically be a far left liberal democrat. Wrong assumption!

I’m an independent voter, leaning closest to libertarian than anything. My favorite candidate in the primaries was a republican, Ron Paul. I don’t like the dems’ tendency towards socialism. I don’t like the reps’ tendency towards theocracy, militarism, oil-dependency, and well, these days socialism. As someone in the “center” I feel disenfranchised by both parties. I sadly have to vote for the lesser of two evils. So no, I wouldn’t like her if she were a democrat. I wouldn’t even like her if she carried the label “libertarian”, because her stance would contradict the label. I don’t like her stance on any issue. She has a very thin track record, and what little is there does not demonstrate good judgment to me. She, and the poor judgment of the man that chose her, is clearly the greater of two evils, regardless of label.

It seems to me the opposite of your claim is true. She and McCain are getting a free-pass simply because of the label “republican”. If you are free-thinking and honest, can’t you at least admit she is a bad republican?

[Author]

Posts